Question about US vs Foreign law

[LAK]

Bartholomew Roberts,

Of course the sovereign territorial requirements are a hindrance to the Global Village; an obstacle that has not been left unaddressed by a runaway Judiciary and a complicit U.S. Congress.

There has been a sovereign territorial requirement for the jurisdiction of any court - State or Federal - from the beginning in this country. In jurisdictional terms, the "United States" is always expressed in terms of territory. How else can it be described?

See:
Pothier v. Rodman, 291 F. 311 (1st Cir. 1923)
Rodman v. Pothier, 264 U.S. 399, 44 S.Ct. 360 (1924)
United States v. Unzeuta, 35 F.2d 750 (8th Cir. 1929)
United States v. Unzeuta, 281 U.S. 138, 50 S.Ct. 284 (1930)
Bowen v. Johnson, 97 F.2d 860 (9th Cir. 1938)
Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19, 59 S.Ct. 442 (1939)
Adams v. United States, 319 U.S. 312, 63 S.Ct. 1122 (1943)

Kelly v. United States, 27 F. 616 (D.Me. 1885)
United States v. Andem, 158 F. 996 (D.N.J. 1908)
United States v. Penn, 48 F. 669 (E.D.Va. 1880)
United States v. Lovely, 319 F.2d 673 (4th Cir. 1963)

"Without proof of the requisite ownership or possession of the United States, the crime has not been made out." - United States v. Watson, 80 F.Supp. 649, 651 (E.D.Va. 1948)

See:
Brown v. United States, 257 F. 46 (5th Cir. 1919)
England v. United States, 174 F.2d 466 (5th Cir. 1949)
Hudspeth v. United States, 223 F.2d 848 (5th Cir. 1955)
Krull v. United States, 240 F.2d 122 (5th Cir. 1957)
Gainey v. United States, 324 F.2d 731 (5th Cir. 1963)
United States v. Townsend, 474 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1973)

"It is axiomatic that the prosecution must always prove territorial jurisdiction over a crime in order to sustain a conviction therefor." - United States v. Benson, 495 F.2d 475, 481 (5th Cir. 1974)

United States v. Tucker, 122 F. 518 (W.D.Ky. 1903)
United States v. Blunt, 558 F.2d 1245 (6th Cir. 1977)
United States v. Johnson, 426 F.2d 1112 (7th Cir. 1970)
United States v. Heard, 270 F.Supp. 198 (W.D.Mo. 1967)
United States v. Redstone, 488 F.2d 300 (8th Cir. 1973)
United States v. Goings, 504 F.2d 809 (8th Cir. 1974)
Hayes v. United States, 367 F.2d 216 (10th Cir. 1966)
Hall v. United States, 404 F.2d 1367 (10th Cir. 1969)
United States v. Carter, 430 F.2d 1278 (10th Cir. 1970)
United States v. Cassidy, 571 F.2d 534 (10th Cir. 1978)

United States v. Bateman, 34 F. 86 (N.D.Cal. 1888)
United States v. Tully, 140 F. 899 (D.Mon. 1905)
United States v. Watkins, 22 F.2d 437 (N.D.Cal. 1927)
United States v. Holt, 168 F. 141 (W.D.Wash. 1909)
United States v. Lewis, 253 F. 469 (S.D.Cal. 1918)
United States v. Wurtzbarger, 276 F. 753 (D.Or. 1921)
Rogers v. Squier, 157 F.2d 948 (9th Cir. 1946)
Arizona v. Manypenny, 445 F.Supp. 1123 (D.Ariz. 1977)

........ Want more?

----------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

LAK, your point that the crimes happened outside the territory of the United States (or a specific court) does not resolve the issue of personal jurisdiction - which I am sure you know if you have read all the cases you cited to me.

A court can have jurisdiction over a person who has been involved in sex tourism under any of the tests I linked to. I don't know how you could disagree with that since it is pretty much basic civil procedure.

 

[shootinstudent]

LAK,

Think about this for a second. If someone goes over to China and commits treason by working on their nuke program, and then comes back to the US...do you think a realistic defense should be "But the US has no territorial jurisdiction over China!"?

The problem with the law isn't jurisdiction so much as the nature of the activity involved. It's a lot like statutory sexual assault cases in the US...they're violated by something like half the population, but represent a small proportion of prosecutions.

That means that only the most unpopular and unlucky get busted for something that everyone is doing anyway, and this is of questionable harm to society.

 

[LAK]

Bartholomew Roberts

A court can have jurisdiction over a person who has been involved in sex tourism under any of the tests I linked to. I don't know how you could disagree with that since it is pretty much basic civil procedure

To make a case of a criminal offense in a foreign jurisdiction where the alleged offense is not a crime is still a judicial innovation unless perhaps it is covered by treaty between the two nations. The case links on your referred site are for civil cases where the defending parties were all within the territorial limits of a U.S. State.

The only personal juridiction for civil matters and criminal offenses exclusively arising in a foreign jurisdiction, outside the territorial jurisdiction of any State or the United States, applies to consentual jurisdiction; like active duty military personnel under the UCMJ for example.

shootinstudent

Think about this for a second. If someone goes over to China and commits treason by working on their nuke program, and then comes back to the US...do you think a realistic defense should be "But the US has no territorial jurisdiction over China!"?

People that are contracted to the Federal government etc in these areas are bound by secrecy laws and disclosure agreements etc. Such a case would also be covered as a matter of consent.

Let's take another example. If a person who resides in a U.S. State where the age of consent is "16 years of age", for example, goes to a foreign country where the age of consent is "14" and commits "an offense" under the laws of his or her resident State, can they be tried in that State for such an offense? Certainly not. It is ridiculous.

The proper venue of the case cited in the thread starter is a Cambodian court.

-----------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

To make a case of a criminal offense in a foreign jurisdiction where the alleged offense is not a crime is still a judicial innovation unless perhaps it is covered by treaty between the two nations. The case links on your referred site are for civil cases where the defending parties were all within the territorial limits of a U.S. State.

Thanks for the correction. You are correct that these would be federal criminal charges and the link I posted deals only with federal civil suits. I wasn't paying attention obviously.

Still in this case, they are bringing charges on so I am wondering how they are addressing the issue of jurisdiction.

 

[shootinstudent]

It's very simple. If you are within the boundaries of the united states, you're within its territorial jurisdiction. The subject matter of the offense does not have to be territorial in order for you to fall into the territorial criminal jurisdiction of the United States.

This is pretty basic, and arguing that it's some sort of legal innovation is silly.

Lak, you're dodging the example. If I sign no oath, no secrecy clause, or any other contract that would make the lex loci contractus the US, I can still commit treason by going to a foreign country and aiding enemies of the US there. In that example, (say, fighting for another army or training a hostile army), I do nothing within the territory of the United States. Yet I think we'd all agree that, once I come back, US courts will have jurisdiction to try me for treason.

It is simply your opinion that crimes committed abroad should be tried abroad, but US law has never required that a territorial test be satisfied unconditionally before a criminal proceeding could be held, so long as the statute in question specified its extra territorial reach.

 

[LAK]

shootinstudent

If I sign no oath, no secrecy clause, or any other contract that would make the lex loci contractus the US, I can still commit treason by going to a foreign country and aiding enemies of the US there

In time of war. And if I am not mistaken, such an act of treason would fall under the jurisdiction the Admiralty court.

It is simply your opinion that crimes committed abroad should be tried abroad, but US law has never required that a territorial test be satisfied unconditionally before a criminal proceeding could be held, so long as the statute in question specified its extra territorial reach.

I refer you to the cases I cited above. It is well established that there are territorial jurisdictional limitations to State and Federal courts.

Extra-territorial jurisdiction is by treaty. This is where the outside - or foreign - sovereign government having jurisdiction on specified geographical areas and crimes cedes it, or partially cedes it, to the U.S. Federal government and courts. This has been used in the so-called "drug war". In the same manner as some U.S. States have ceded or partially cedeed jurisdiction on specific pieces of land or areas.

Another example is overseas military bases, where a status of forces agreement specifies where U.S. military jurisdiction lies and for what offenses.

-------------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[shootinstudent]

LAK,

Admiralty happens to be my specialty, so no, that's not where it would fall. On top of that, there's no "in time of war" requirement for treason.

You can cite all the case law you want, but that doesn't make it correct. The people who argue that income tax is unconstitutional have cases too...they're still wrong.

Extra territorial jurisdiction in this sense has always been possible.

 

[LAK]

shootinstudent,

Admiralty law and courts "your speciality"? Interesting. I am starting to detect waffle.

If you read the definition of treason as defined in the Constitution Article III section 3 there are two elements; referred to as "war" and the "enemy".

Now we know that in the age of the Global Village we have a great deal of inventive terminology and innovation to suit what direction a certain group of people wish to take our country in. So let us first recap on a few historical facts.

Fact number one: "terrorism" and almost any other "ism" you can conjure up have been around as long as civilization and recorded history. Nothing new when the Declaration of Independence was drafted, and neither were such things new at the time the U.S. Constitution was drafted.

There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution for recreating the basis for our jurisprudence or creating Federal court jurisdiction where it does not exist - except by consent of individual concerning their own person - or consent (by treaty) of another sovereign power over it's own soil. Neither is there provision for creatively interpreting the terms "enemies" and "war" to mean or include something some change agents want to add because they can not get the Constitution amended through Congress to suit their agenda.

You can cite all the case law you want, but that doesn't make it correct

I would be the first to agree that "case law" is not in and of itself the law. However, the issue is not a matter of law; jurisdiction is not something derived from the "law". Jurisdiction is a matter of the extent of a sovereign power. A sovereign power can not arbitrarily extend it's power over that of another; except by consent or by force. The cited cases simply illustrate the effect of jurisdiction in action quite clearly.

Jurisdiction is not something that can be "interpreted" by a court; it has from the beginning been territorial in principle. Were jurisdiction as "gray" a subject matter as you suggest, foreign courts in any number of countries could incarcerate and prosecute U.S. citizens for any number of acts that the particular government in question consider "crimes" - and simply claim "extra-territorial jurisdiction" over the matter.

--------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[shootinstudent]

Admiralty law and courts "your speciality"? Interesting. I am starting to detect waffle.

If you read the definition of treason as defined in the Constitution Article III section 3 there are two elements; referred to as "war" and the "enemy".

How does pointing out that Admiralty is my specialty constitute a "waffle"? There was no waffling. I indicated clearly: treason has zero place in admiralty court. Where on earth did you get the idea that it did?

Jurisdiction is a matter of the extent of a sovereign power. A sovereign power can not arbitrarily extend it's power over that of another; except by consent or by force. The cited cases simply illustrate the effect of jurisdiction in action quite clearly.

On the civil side, it has been universally held that service of process on a person within the territorial bounds of the court's jurisdiction means that the court has jurisdiction even if the action arises from outside that jurisdiction.

This is simply an extension of that reasoning on the criminal side. If what you were saying were true, then trying anyone for treasonous acts committed entirely outside the borders of the United States would be impossible. Fortunately, what you say is not and never has been true of the law, so it was from the beginning and is now possible to assert jurisdiction legitimately over acts that occur outside the territorial united states.

 

[carebear]

In the case of treason or a few others the United States can logically represent (in the case of US citizens harmed) or be (in the case of treason) the aggrieved party of a criminal act.

I think the legal reasoning becomes a bit tortuous when the US claims to have some kind of standing (or need) to represent an non-US citizen individual (say, the Thai bar girl) for an act which occured in another sovereign nation.

They are claiming the part of the plaintiff in a "crime" which may not be a crime within the sovereign territory of another State AND which in no way, shape or form (directly or truly even indirectly) affects the US government or any of its citizens.

That's what I don't get. How do they justify the legal why and how of it? I keep thinking it boils down to just "because we're the frikkin' US of A and we can".

 

[Cosmoline]

Treason is a crime against the United States. It is this basic principle which gives the US federal courts jurisdiction over the prosecution of such crimes. You can also conspire to ship drugs into the United States and be brought here for trial on that basis even if you never set foot in the US. But the United States would be hard pressed to justify extending jurisdiction in a trial of a Russian citizen for treason against Russia which took place in Israel.

As far as sex tourism, some of those laws do indeed go further than they ought to. Canada and many European nations have enacted laws which make it illegal to have sex with minors overseas even if there is no crime in the foreign nation. It is indeed a departure from traditional notions of restrictive criminal jurisdiction, and it is disturbing. The concept underlying these laws is called "UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION," and is a central lynchpin of the globalist philosphy. "There is one law," the globalists say.

The PROTECT act of 2003 is codified at 18 USC 2423(c) and does indeed make it a very serious federal crime for a US citizen to have sexual relations abroad with anyone under 18, even if the age of consent is lower (as it is on most of the planet). So far its constitutionality has been upheld on the grounds that it is limited to US Citizens. U.S. v. Clark, 435 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2006). Their citizenship, in theory, allows the federal government to extend its criminal jurisdiction over them. But this has traditionally been a very narrow category. It can certainly be abused. For example, if the British Parliament ruled that British citizens abroad could be prosecuted for handling firearms while overseas which would be illegal for them to own in the UK. The advocates of "Universal Law" want to break down these barriers and allow any nation to pass any law to regulate the conduct of anyone they see fit. The international push to "protect the children" through the laws like the PROTECT act and its sister laws around the world is just the first volley in this war. They target the chesters first because everyone hates them, and nobody wants to say no to a law attacking them. But believe me, stopping child molestation abroad is *NOT* the mission of the people pushing these laws. They want ONE LAW and ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.

 

[LAK]

shootinstudent

How does pointing out that Admiralty is my specialty constitute a "waffle"? There was no waffling. I indicated clearly: treason has zero place in admiralty court. Where on earth did you get the idea that it did?

Well ....

Admiralty happens to be my specialty, so no, that's not where it would fall. On top of that, there's no "in time of war" requirement for treason.

There is an "in time of war" requirement - see Art 3 Sec III the USC. Or do the words "war" and "enemies" fall into that special global-socialist dictionary category, which "require interpretation" and defined as; " .. can mean anything we want it to mean"?

On the civil side, it has been universally held that service of process on a person within the territorial bounds of the court's jurisdiction means that the court has jurisdiction even if the action arises from outside that jurisdiction

That is civil, not the issue under discussion, and there must be a substantial connection between the outside and inside parties.

You are a citizen of Monte Carlo. Try suing Joe Bloggs, who resides a U.S. State, in any U.S. civil court, over a personal injury or property damage that occurred when you both crossed paths in a hotel in Monte Carlo.

A U.S. court has no jurisdiction over a criminal offense committed in a foreign jurisdiction - where such a crime is not a crime in that jurisdiction. Except as has already been noted in previous posts.

This is simply an extension of that reasoning on the criminal side. If what you were saying were true, then trying anyone for treasonous acts committed entirely outside the borders of the United States would be impossible. Fortunately, what you say is not and never has been true of the law, so it was from the beginning and is now possible to assert jurisdiction legitimately over acts that occur outside the territorial united states.

You seem to have a difficult time understanding that a civil suit by a foreign party against a party in the U.S., in a U.S. court, requires more than just the defending party residing in one of the fifty States or a territory of the United States for the court to have jurisdiction.

And that the jurisdiction for the crime of treason has certain requirements which are unique to a time of war with a foreign sovereign power, and are codified in the USC.

Not surprizingly, you will find that most foreign powers have similar conditions and codification.

-----------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org